Dr. Philip McMillan, John McMillan
The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t just challenge our healthcare systems—it shook the very foundations of medical autonomy and scientific integrity. Two physicians, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Jackie Stone, found themselves at the epicenter of this turmoil, facing immense institutional pressure as they championed early treatment protocols during the crisis.
Doctors on the Frontlines
Dr. McCullough, a seasoned cardiologist from Dallas, Texas, with nearly four decades of clinical experience, never imagined he’d be at odds with the very institutions he served. “I took it on as the ultimate academic challenge,” he remarked, reflecting on his decision to develop a treatment protocol when none seemed forthcoming. While many awaited guidance from leading institutions like Harvard or Oxford, Dr. McCullough stepped forward, driven by a commitment to his patients.
He collaborated with colleagues to create what became known as the McCullough Protocol—a stepwise approach to treating COVID-19 at home to prevent hospitalization and death. However, instead of support, he encountered a wall of resistance. “There was a decision made before I was ever called into a room that I was going to essentially be pushed out of my position,” he recounted. His Protocol, aimed at reducing hospitalizations and deaths, was met with skepticism and, eventually, unthinkable backlash. Dr. McCullough faced job termination, legal battles, and professional vilification.
He wasn’t alone in this struggle. Dr. Jackie Stone, working in Zimbabwe, confronted her own set of challenges. Despite witnessing positive results with treatments like ivermectin, she faced censorship and threats to her medical license. “I can’t put my heart and soul into finding solutions because I don’t think they’re going to work against such powerful opposition,” she lamented. The institutional pushback wasn’t just professional—it was deeply personal, affecting her sense of purpose and hope for the future.
Fear and Conformity
To an outsider the situation seems incongruous to the point of unbelievability. What dark Sisyphean forces might have driven such intense opposition against physicians dedicated to patient care? Dr. McCullough suggested that fear itself played a significant role. Many doctors were hesitant to step outside established guidelines, especially when facing a novel virus. “Most doctors quickly said, you know what? They’re not going to be in the COVID business,” he observed. “Doctors withdrew… They would just tell patients, listen, go to the hospital”. The fear of legal repercussions, professional isolation, and even personal safety contributed to a culture of silence.
But beyond fear, there was a palpable tension between individual clinical judgment and institutional directives. The rapid push for vaccines appeared to overshadow early treatment options. “It was clear that there was going to be a suppression of treatment…” he said, “The only thing that’s really going to have support is vaccination”. Both he and Dr. Stone felt that their efforts were being stifled by larger agendas, leaving them and their patients in precarious positions.
The Personal Toll
The emotional toll on these physicians was profound. Dr. Stone expressed feelings of isolation, stating that many of her colleagues were “completely captured” by the mainstream narrative. The looming threat of losing her medical license contributed to profound depression. Dr. McCullough faced public defamation, with his reputation built over decades seemingly dismantled overnight. “How could I go from being the most published person in my field to one of the worst doctors in America?” he lamented, highlighting the stark contrast between his contributions and his treatment.
These experiences raise pressing questions about the state of medical autonomy. When did advocating for patient care become a rebellious act? Why are seasoned physicians penalized for exercising clinical judgment in unprecedented times? When doctors can’t exercise their clinical judgment without fear of retribution, the very fabric of patient care is at risk.
Rebuilding Trust
It’s profoundly distressing to realize that the very systems designed to support healthcare professionals can sometimes hinder them. The stories of Dr. McCullough and Dr. Stone aren’t isolated incidents but reflections of a broader struggle within the medical community. Dr. McCullough emphasized the need for widespread education to bridge the gaps. “We need to have a massive educational campaign to catch doctors up on what’s happened,” he urged. Open dialogue and a willingness to consider diverse medical opinions are essential steps toward restoring trust within the medical community.
So, where do we go from here? Rebuilding trust is paramount. Physicians must be able to voice their clinical insights without fear of retribution. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the balance between adherence to guidelines and the necessity for individual clinical insight. After all, medicine isn’t a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It’s a dynamic field that thrives on questioning, exploring, and, yes, sometimes challenging the status quo. Diverse medical perspectives can only strengthen our collective response to health challenges.
The pandemic has been a stark reminder that medicine is as much about humanity as it is about science. The dedication of doctors like Dr. McCullough and Dr. Stone, who have given their lives to their cause, serves as a beacon, illuminating the path toward more open, compassionate, and autonomous medical practice. Let’s not let their voices be drowned out. After all, isn’t the unwavering commitment to heal and to do no harm at the very heart of medicine?
This tragedy has been unfolding quietly in the U.S. for quite some time. I’ve witnessed firsthand how two of my doctors were pressured to follow strict protocols, often at the expense of patient care.
In 2004, my primary care physician (PCP) in CA, who was part of an HMO, was instructed to prescribe only sulfa antibiotics after a blood test showed I had C. diff. However, she refused to follow this directive because she was aware of my previous adverse reaction to sulfa drugs. At my follow-up appointment, I was surprised to find a different doctor in her place. I was told that she had resigned due to the increasingly rigid and unreasonable regulations.
A similar situation occurred in 2007 with my endocrinologist in NM. He left the hospital where he worked due to the same restrictive protocols. He later opened a private practice with his wife, also an endocrinologist, and almost all his former patients, including myself, followed him. Both of these doctors took the time to thoroughly review patients’ medical histories and would even consult with pharmacists when necessary, ensuring the best possible care.
In 2020, I witnessed a young doctor in Germany being publicly ridiculed by his superior for suggesting that I urgently needed plasma. A week later, I found out that he had been replaced.
Thanks to social media, we are now more aware of what goes on behind the scenes in the medical field. It’s crucial that we stand with doctors who prioritize patient care over rigid protocols. These doctors deserve our support for making decisions based on what’s best for their patients, not just what the rules dictate.